“If we don't end war, war will end us,” this quote by H.G.Wells signifies exactly the scenario present in Iraq for 7years. Civilians targeted with the pretext of them being militia, a country whose rule was completely destroyed for better and for worse, and a takeover by a foreign army who was sent with the excuse to ‘save the world.’- The US and Iraq war meant all of this, and more.
After having faced years of authoritarian rule under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was invaded by the US in 2003. Seemingly, the invasion was initiated over the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, as well as Saddam Hussein’s failure to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors. However there are many questions that arise about the truth of this justification, as well as the legality of the invasion that occurred. It is true that the US-led coalition played an important role in defeating the Ba’ath party and the Iraqi army who had created havoc in the lives of the Iraqi people, however they also triggered an insurgency that caused double the havoc.
Even though USA invaded Iraq with ostensibly ‘good’ reasons, researchers, analysts, and inside informers had a different story- the real one. The real reasons can be summed up as deciding who controls the Middle East oil, who gets access to water from the Tigris and Euphrates, and most importantly what currency will be used to pay for the development of the oil and water resources worldwide.
With relation to the invasion being due to currency hassles, Iraq had begun to accept payment in Euros for its oil, thereby paving the way for all major oil producers to do the same. If this were to happen, the Euro would then be seen as the world’s reserve currency and the Dollar would have to forgo its place. This would have had a major negative impact on the US economy and would in turn severely reduce its ability to pour money into its weapons programs. However, by gaining control of Iraq’s oil the US could maintain the Dollars as the reserve currency, and therefore retain its position in the world wide trade.
It has been known that the region of Iraq is one which contains more than 60% of the world’s known reserves. With the existence of 115bn barrels of oil reserves, and a lot more of the country left to explore, Iraq has oil capacity only second to Saudi Arabia. The US, in contrast, holds the title of being the world’s largest net importer of oil. In 1990, a few years before the US invasion, the invasion motives were made public when Dick Cheney, the then Secretary of Defense, said on record that “Whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a strange hold not only on our economy but also on the other countries of the world as well.” Therefore the invasion would help in gaining access to the oil reserves and help in acquiring large amounts of profits.
It is interesting to note that in 2002, when the US government-media propaganda began, 60% of the US population believed that Iraq was an imminent threat. This was something that people in Kuwait or even Iran did not believe in. Furthermore, about 50% of the population began to believe that Iraq was responsible for the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center. This government-media propaganda began to make people support the war, and with the backing of the public, it made the invasion justification stronger. It is also important to note that this media campaign gained its height during the mid-term election campaign for president. Seeing as how George Bush was willing to ‘protect’ the citizens, his support increased.
Noam Chomsky, renowned activist and philosopher, states a very interesting fact. He talks about the “new norms” that USA has established in their international relations matters. The “new norms” talk about ‘preventive war’. It is important to note that “preventive war” and “pre-emptive war,” though essentially meaning the same thing, are different. “Pre-emptive war” in essence means a war to protect ones country when a threat has been proven, and danger is sure to take place. In such a situation a country can attack the enemy on the basis of protecting oneself and therefore terming it as “pre-emptive war” However, Noam Chomsky rightly states that the war with Iraq is not “pre-emptive,” since according to USA the document stated ‘preventive war,’ the US has the right to attack any country that claims to be a potential challenge to it. This basically means that on whatever grounds, if the US feels threatened, they can plan an attack. The major difference between the general idea of “pre-emptive war” and “preventive war” lies in the fact that the former is a response to ongoing or imminent attack, while the latter is based on mere assumption. With relation to Iraq, the very norm of “preventive war” has been put into effect, thereby proving that the accusations made by USA about Iraq possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction, are baseless.
It has also been proven that the war on Iraq, had been a part of the geopolitical strategy of the USA for many years. It was a part of the strategy to help US domination of the world’s economic resources. This plan was formed in the “National Security Strategy of the USA,” which was later published. Analysts say that the document clearly talks about the ‘right of USA’ to rid any country of its regime, and pay no heed to the sovereignty of the country that allegedly might turn hostile to them. The document begins by boasting that “United States possesses unprecedented and unequaled strength and influence in the world.” The document also subtly talks about the wars against small and defenseless states which will prove to be the preparation for military onslaughts against more formidable targets.
Scandals such as the Abu Ghraib Scandal in 2004, which showed circulated pictures of US service personnel humiliating and torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and videos on Wiki leaks which show US forces killing innocent civilians without bothering to check if they are insurgents or militants, prove to be raw footage of power over humanity. Though the war ended in 2011, and America troops were cleared from Iraq by 31st December 2011, the destruction and damage that the war created lingers on. The deadly violence is omnipresent, and the evidence of pervasive mayhem is constant. The entire concept of entering Iraq, making the world believe that the act is justified, and leaving an already broken country in a worsened state, clearly brings about only one question- is there a need for a regime change in Iraq, or should the US be putting itself in place first?
ZAHRA AMIRUDDIN-3742
No comments:
Post a Comment